Gay marriage (as in the legal and civil workings) have been allowed in Denmark since.. somewhere in the 90's - the change is that it was rendered legal for the church to carry out unions - which they had been prohibited from doing by an old law that was recently changed so the church could make up its own mind on blessing+union instead of having to get the union done civilly and then get the churchs blessing.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/2 ... 28104.html"We were kicked out last year and nothing has changed and we wont be at CPAC," GOProud's Jimmy LaSalvia said in an interview. "The last communication I've had from them is that we were kicked out. Nothing has changed."

Why the heck are these guys still republicans when their own party doesn't want them?

Klaudandus wrote:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/20/goproud-cpac-2013-log-cabin-republicans_n_2728104.html"We were kicked out last year and nothing has changed and we wont be at CPAC," GOProud's Jimmy LaSalvia said in an interview. "The last communication I've had from them is that we were kicked out. Nothing has changed."

Why the heck are these guys still republicans when their own party doesn't want them?

But like a lot of conservatives and libertarians I know, I will do so with much less enthusiasm than I did a few years back in part because the impression CPAC is giving off, and doing too little to alter in my opinion, is that it's not really keeping pace as the conservative movement modernizes.

Modernizes. Now, with the meaning of "dragging everyone back to the 50's".

Seriously> I don't understand what the hell is wrong with these people. Do they have their heads so far in the sand that they don't realize that their stance on Gays, women, and racial minorities COST THEM THE @#(*%&-ING ELECTION?

What is it going to take? Losing it again in 2016?

What the gay community should do, is find a moderate "leaning?" small party that supports gay rights. And they should be "the Gay Party". Have them start running geographically in places that poll well for the LGBT community, and start pushing it. Get them into offices (congress, state house of reps, etc...) and push through the legislation. The Tea Partiers were running on just "no taxes" and paranoia. I have to believe if a group ran solely with their gay rights plank as the loudest, they could start winning some seats.

Shoju wrote:Modernizes. Now, with the meaning of "dragging everyone back to the 50's".

I think you are misunderstanding her comment.

She's saying that the GOP isn't keeping up with modern conservative principles, that the GOP's position on gay marriage is evidence of that lack of modernization. It's not the conservative position that takes us back to the 50s, just the GOP's position.

Like me, she is trying pointing out a difference between the GOP and conservatives like libertarians who were OK with gay marriage long before the Democrats.

The equal marriage bill in the UK passed its second hearing last month and the Conservative Party supporters are still having kittens over it because their leader (our PM) and nearly the entire cabinet supported it. UKIP, the far right party modeled on the American tea party, is gobbling up lots of disaffected conservative voters because they are against it (despite supposedly being a libertarian party!) which will massively split the right wing vote.

As always, populist tabloid politics and scaring the shit out of people is always a vote winner and by trying to modernise itself by moving away from some of this stuff, the Conservative Party is hemorrhaging support. Amusing but tragic.

We may be seeing some action here by the courts soon as well. I've read a couple of recent articles speculating the results. The articles don't paint a rosey picture but I suspect they're sandbagging. They seem to be suggesting Kennedy as the swing vote (he often is), and point out that his prior comments which seem promising don't necessarily mean he'll come out in favor of gay marriage.

I guess that last point is probably accurate, but I really don't think it'll be that close. I could easily see a 2 vote margin, and more wouldn't surprise me. The only thorn I see is the "states rights" issue, but I think that's a shit copout at this point.

KysenMurrin wrote:Sounds like they're running out of arguments to oppose it with.

That was the winning argument in Hernandez v. Robles, so it's no surprise that marriage opponents are rehashing it now.

It fetishizes the one biological difference between same-sex couples and other-sex couples as not only relevant but indispensible. It's a fundamentally stupid argument, but it's one with an actual judicial pedigree.

There's a pretty big flaw in that line of logic. The same-sex couple that gets married has exactly the same chance to get accidentally pregnant as they had prior to marriage. The ability to marry doesn't change this. If I were married to another man, that wouldn't necessarily preclude me from cheating on my husband with a female. Of course, this does assume either bisexual or at least experimental willingness, but nonetheless it's not guaranteed.

Well that argument goes both ways. Accidental pregnancy isn't any greater (or lesser) risk if my GF and I got married, than it is now where we are not, also neither eventuality precludes me from going out and cheating and getting some other girl (I don't feel old enough to call them women, sorry "girls") pregnant.

Kanta wrote:There's a pretty big flaw in that line of logic. The same-sex couple that gets married has exactly the same chance to get accidentally pregnant as they had prior to marriage. The ability to marry doesn't change this. If I were married to another man, that wouldn't necessarily preclude me from cheating on my husband with a female. Of course, this does assume either bisexual or at least experimental willingness, but nonetheless it's not guaranteed.

Wasn't saying it was a good argument... I was just trying to come up with something just as stupid as what anti-gay marriage people come up with.